Submitted:
18 April 2024
Posted:
19 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Results
3. Discussion
4. Materials and Methods
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A: Endometrial cancer patients stratified by preoperative diagnosis (N=52)
| Variable | CAH (N=23) | CAH/EAC (N=29) | P Value |
| Median Age (Q1-Q3) - years | 64.7 (10.0) | 61.6 (11.6) | 0.312 |
| Median BMI (Q1-Q3) – Kg/m2 | 36.3 (6.5) | 38.1 (7.4) | 0.357 |
| DM No Yes |
16 (69.6%) 7 (30.4%) |
18 (62.1%) 11 (37.9%) |
0.786 |
| HTN No Yes |
4 (17.4%) 19 (82.6%) |
11 (37.9%) 18 (62.1%) |
0.188 |
| HPL No Yes |
15 (65.2%) 8 (34.8%) |
17 (58.6%) 12 (41.4%) |
0.843 |
| ASA I II III IV |
NA 8 (34.8%) 14 (60.9%) 1 (4.3%) |
NA 10 (34.5%) 19 (65.5%) 0 (0%) |
0.648 |
| Biopsy method EMB D&C |
11 (47.8%) 12 (52.2%) |
15 (51.7%) 14 (48.3%) |
1.000 |
|
Any LND (SLNB OR PLD OR PPALND) No Yes |
9 (39.1%) 14 (60.9%) |
9 (31.0%) 20 (69.0%) |
0.752 |
| Grade I II III |
17 (73.9%) 5 (21.7%) 1 (4.3%) |
21 (72.4%) 7 (24.1%) 1 (3.4%) |
1.000 |
| Stage IA IB II |
16 (69.6%) 6 (26.1%) 1 (4.3%) |
20 (69.0%) 9 (31.0%) 0 (0.0%) |
0.740 |
| DOI < 50% > OR EQUAL TO 50% |
16 (69.6%) 7 (30.4%) |
20 (69.0%) 9 (31.0%) |
1.000 |
| Size (not specified %) < 2 CM > OR EQUAL TO 2 CM |
5(21.7%) 9 (39.1%) 9 (39.1%) |
1 (3.4%) 10 (34.5%) 18 (62.1%) |
0.513 |
| LVI No Yes |
22 (95.7%) 1 (4.3%) |
27 (93.1%) 2 (6.9%) |
1.000 |
| ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification. BMI: Body mass index. DM: Diabetes Mellitus. HTN: Hypertension. HPL: Hyperlipidemia. DOI: Depth of invasion. SLN: Sentinel lymph node. EAC: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma. LVI: Lymphovascular space invasion. CAH: Complex atypical hyperplasia. CAH/EAC: complex atypical hyperplasia bordering on endometrial cancer or cannot rule out cancer. | |||
Appendix B: Multiple logistical regression. Predictors of Endometrial cancer
| Risk factor | Standard Error | P Value | |
| Age | 0.023 | 0.023 | 0.3 |
| BMI | 0.013 | 0.03 | 0.66 |
| Diabetes | 0.344 | 0.524 | 0.51 |
| Hypertension | 0.636 | 0.511 | 0.21 |
| Hyperlipidemia | -0.121 | 0.478 | 0.8 |
| Preop. Diagnosis | 1.99 | 0.484 | 0.001 |
| Biopsy Method | -0.436 | 0.44 | 0.32 |
Appendix C: Simple logistical regression. Preoperative diagnosis CAH vs. CAH/EAC
| Variable | P-value |
| AGE | 0.532 |
| BMI | 0.338 |
| DM | 0.076 |
| HTN | 0.243 |
| HLD | 0.416 |
| Biopsy Method | 0.257 |
| Post op Grade | 0.813 |
| Post op Size | 0.422 |
| DOI | 0.813 |
| LVI | 0.984 |
| Stage | 0.813 |
| BMI: Body mass index. DM: Diabetes Mellitus. HTN: Hypertension. HPL: Hyperlipidemia. DOI: Depth of invasion. EAC: Endometrioid adenocarcinoma. LVI: Lymphovascular space invasion. CAH: Complex atypical hyperplasia. CAH/EAC: complex atypical hyperplasia bordering on endometrial cancer or cannot rule out cancer. | |
Appendix D: Narrative description of postoperative complications (N=4)
References
- Trimble CL, Kauderer J, Zaino R, et al. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: A gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer. 2006;106(4). [CrossRef]
- Management of Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia: ACOG Clinical Consensus No. 5. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2023;142(3). [CrossRef]
- Costales AB, Schmeler KM, Broaddus R, et al. Clinically significant endometrial cancer risk following a diagnosis of complex atypical hyperplasia. In: Gynecologic Oncology. Vol 135. ; 2014. [CrossRef]
- Morotti M, Menada MV, Moioli M, et al. Frozen section pathology at time of hysterectomy accurately predicts endometrial cancer in patients with preoperative diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia. In: Gynecologic Oncology. Vol 125; 2012. [CrossRef]
- Touhami O, Grégoire J, Renaud MC, Sebastianelli A, Grondin K, Plante M. The utility of sentinel lymph node mapping in the management of endometrial atypical hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;148(3):485-490. [CrossRef]
- Lim SL, Moss HA, Secord AA, Lee PS, Havrilesky LJ, Davidson BA. Hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy in the setting of pre-operative diagnosis of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;151(3). [CrossRef]
- Mueller JJ, Rios-Doria E, Park KJ, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with endometrial hyperplasia: A practice to preserve or abandon? Gynecol Oncol. 2023;168. [CrossRef]
- Matanes E, Amajoud Z, Kogan L, et al. Is sentinel lymph node assessment useful in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia? Gynecol Oncol. 2023;168. [CrossRef]
- Kumar S, Medeiros F, Dowdy SC, et al. A prospective assessment of the reliability of frozen section to direct intraoperative decision making in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127(3):525-531. [CrossRef]
- Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, et al. Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: A paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(1). [CrossRef]
- Frumovitz M, Slomovitz BM, Singh DK, et al. Frozen Section Analyses as Predictors of Lymphatic Spread in Patients with Early-Stage Uterine Cancer.; 2004.
- Case AS, Rocconi RP, Straughn JM, et al. A Prospective Blinded Evaluation of the Accuracy of Frozen Section for the Surgical Management of Endometrial Cancer LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2.; 2006.
- Visser NCM, Reijnen C, Massuger LFAG, Nagtegaal ID, Bulten J, Pijnenborg JMA. Accuracy of endometrial sampling in endometrial carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017;130(4). [CrossRef]
- Giglio A, Miller B, Curcio E, et al. Challenges to intraoperative evaluation of endometrial cancer. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2020;24(2). [CrossRef]
- Holloway RW, Abu-Rustum NR, Backes FJ, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping and staging in endometrial cancer: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology literature review with consensus recommendations. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146(2). [CrossRef]
- Bodurtha Smith AJ, Fader AN, Tanner EJ. Sentinel lymph node assessment in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(5). [CrossRef]
- Leitao MM, Zhou QC, Gomez-Hidalgo NR, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after surgery for endometrial carcinoma: Prevalence of lower-extremity lymphedema after sentinel lymph node mapping versus lymphadenectomy. In: Gynecologic Oncology. Vol 156. ; 2020. [CrossRef]
- Polan RM, Rossi EC, Barber EL. Extent of lymphadenectomy and postoperative major complications among women with endometrial cancer treated with minimally invasive surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(3). [CrossRef]
- Bogani G, Murgia F, Ditto A, Raspagliesi F. Sentinel node mapping vs. lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153(3). [CrossRef]
- Rossi EC, Kowalski LD, Scalici J, et al. A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(3). [CrossRef]
- Frumovitz M, Plante M, Lee PS, et al. The FILM Trial: A randomized phase III multicenter study assessing near infrared fluorescence in the identification of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). Gynecol Oncol. 2018;149. [CrossRef]
- NCCN Guidelines: uterine neoplasms. Version 2.2024; Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uterine.pdf. NCCN Guidelines Uterine Cancer.
- Dioun S, Chen L, Gockley A, et al. Uptake and outcomes of sentinel lymph node mapping in women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162. [CrossRef]
- Barlin JN, Khoury-Collado F, Kim CH, et al. The importance of applying a sentinel lymph node mapping algorithm in endometrial cancer staging: Beyond removal of blue nodes. In: Gynecologic Oncology. Vol 125. ; 2012:531-535. [CrossRef]
- RC. R Core Team 2023 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Published online 2023.
- Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of Surgical Complications. Ann Surg. Published online 2004. [CrossRef]
- Clavien PA, Barkun J, De Oliveira ML, et al. The clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications: Five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2). [CrossRef]
- Daraï E, Dubernard G, Bats AS, et al. Sentinel node biopsy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer: Long-term results of the SENTI-ENDO study. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;136(1):54-59. [CrossRef]
- Curcio EE, Giglio A, Dewan A, ElSahwi K. Robotic-Assisted Sentinel Lymph Node Sampling in Endometrial Cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(7). [CrossRef]
- Casarin J, Song C, Multinu F, et al. Implementing robotic surgery for uterine cancer in the United States: Better outcomes without increased costs. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156(2). [CrossRef]
- Dioun S, Chen L, Melamed A, et al. Uptake and Outcomes of Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Women With Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia. In: Obstetrics and Gynecology. Vol 137. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2021:924-934. [CrossRef]
- Zaino RJ, Kauderer J, Trimble CL, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of atypical endometrial hyperplasia: A gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer. 2006;106(4). [CrossRef]
- Indermaur MD, Shoup B, Tebes S, Lancaster JM. The accuracy of frozen pathology at time of hysterectomy in patients with complex atypical hyperplasia on preoperative biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(5). [CrossRef]
- MM, Barakat RR. Clinical Approach to Diagnosis and Management of Endometrial Hyperplasia and Carcinoma. Surg Pathol Clin. 2011;4(1). [CrossRef]
- Mueller J, Rios-Doria E, Park K, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with endometrial hyperplasia: A practice to preserve or abandon? (117). Gynecol Oncol. 2022;166. [CrossRef]
- Dioun S, Chen L, Gockley A, et al. Uptake and outcomes of sentinel lymph node mapping in women with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162. [CrossRef]
- Vetter MH, Smith B, Benedict J, et al. Preoperative predictors of endometrial cancer at time of hysterectomy for endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia or complex atypical hyperplasia. In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Vol 222. ; 2020. [CrossRef]
- Abt D, Macharia A, Hacker MR, Baig R, Esselen KMK, Ducie J. Endometrial stripe thickness: a preoperative marker to identify patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia who may benefit from sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2022;32(9). [CrossRef]
- Laskov I, Tzur Y, Zindel O, et al. The incidence of endometrial carcinoma in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia versus atypical endometrial polyp (438). Gynecol Oncol. 2022;166. [CrossRef]
- Kogan L, Matanes E, Wissing M, et al. Omitting Lymphadenectomy in Obese Endometrial Cancer Patients Undergoing Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping: More Is Less. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(7). [CrossRef]
- Tanner EJ, Sinno AK, Stone RL, Levinson KL, Long KC, Fader AN. Factors associated with successful bilateral sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138(3). [CrossRef]
- Werner S, Gadomski T, Pereira E, Villella J. Lymphatic mapping and obesity with sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2021;162. [CrossRef]
| Variable | SLN N = 69 |
No SLN N = 44 |
Total N = 113 |
P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median Age (Q1-Q3) – years | 63[57 – 70] | 61 [53 – 67.25] | 62 [56 – 69] | 0.363 |
| Median BMI (Q1-Q3) - Kg/m2 | 34 [30.0 - 38.6] | 40.0 [33.7 - 44.0] | 36.3 [31.7 - 41.0] | 0.004 |
| Diabetes Mellitus | 16 (23.2%) | 14 (31.8%) | 30 (26.5%) | 0.427 |
| Hypertension | 44 (63.8%) | 30 (68.2%) | 74 (65.5%) | 0.781 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 21 (30.4%) | 18 (40.9%) | 39 (34.5%) | 0.348 |
| ASA grade | 0.789 | |||
| 1 | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.9%) | |
| 2 | 30 (43.5%) | 16 (36.4%) | 46 (40.7%) | |
| 3 | 37 (53.6%) | 28 (63.6%) | 65 (57.5%) | |
| 4 | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.9%) |
| Variable | SLN N=69 |
NO SLN N=44 |
Total N=113 |
P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preop. Diagnosis | 1.000 | |||
| CAH | 45 (65.2%) | 29 (65.9%) | 74 (65.5%) | |
| CAH/EAC | 24 (34.8%) | 15 (34.1%) | 39 (34.5%) | |
| Postop. diagnosis | 0.215 | |||
| No hyperplasia | 9 (13%) | 11 (25%) | 20 (17.7%) | |
| CAH | 28 (40.6%) | 13 (29.5%) | 41 (36.3%) | |
| EAC | 32 (46.4%) | 20 (45.5%) | 52 (46%) | |
| Biopsy Method | 0.444 | |||
| EMB | 33 (47.8%) | 17 (38.6%) | 50 (44.2%) | |
| D&C | 36 (52.2%) | 27 (61.4%) | 63 (55.8%) |
| Variable Number (%) |
SLN N=32 |
NO SLN N=20 |
Total N=52 |
P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EAC Grade 1/2 3 |
30 (93.7%) 2 (6.3%) |
20 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) |
50 (96.2%) 2 (3.8%) |
0.517 |
| Stage IA IB II |
20 (62.5%) 11 (34.4%) 1 (3.1%) |
16 (80.0%) 4 (20.0%) 0 (0%) |
36 (69.2%) 15 (28.8%) 1 (1.9%) |
0.427 |
| DOI < or equal to 50% > 50% |
20 (62.5%) 12 (37.5%) |
16 (80.0%) 4 (20.0%) |
36 (69.2%) 16 (30.8%) |
0.307 |
| Size (not specified %) < or equal to 2 CM > 2 CM |
3 (9.3%) 11 (34.3%) 18 (56.2%) |
3 (15%) 8 (40%) 9 (45%) |
6 (11.5%) 19 (36.5%) 27 (51.9%) |
0.767 |
| LVI ABSENT PRESENT |
29 (90.6%) 3 (9.4%) |
20 (100%) 0 (0%) |
49 (94.2%) 3 (5.8%) |
0.276 |
| Cytology NEGATIVE POSITIVE Missing data |
25 (78.1%) 0 (0%) 7 (21.9%) |
19 (95.0%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.0%) |
44 (84.6%) 0 (0%) 8 (15.4%) |
1.000** 0.132*** |
| Preop Diagnosis CAH CAH/EAC |
13 (40.6%) 19 (59.4%) |
10 (50%) 10 (50%) |
23 (44.2%) 29 (55.8%) |
0.707 |
| Biopsy Method EMB D&C |
16 (50%) 16 (50%) |
10 (50%) 10 (50%) |
26 (50%) 26 (50%) |
1.000 |
| Variable | Value | SLN N=69 |
NO SLN N=44 |
Total N=113 |
P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapping | No | 0 (0%) | 44 (100%) | 44 (38.9%) | <0.001 |
| Unilateral | 5 (7.2%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (4.4%) | ||
| Bilateral | 64 (92.8%) | 0 (0%) | 64 (56.6%) | ||
| SLNB | No | 1 (1.4%) | 44 (100%) | 45 (39.8%) | <0.001 |
| Unilateral | 6 (8.7%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (5.3%) | ||
| Bilateral | 62 (89.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (54.9%) | ||
| PLND | No | 65 (94.2%) | 40 (90.9%) | 105 (92.9%) | 0.844 |
| Unilateral | 3 (4.3%) | 3 (6.8%) | 6 (5.3%) | ||
| Bilateral | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (1.8%) | ||
| PALND | No | 69 (100%) | 43 (97.7%) | 112 (99.1%) | 0.389 |
| Yes | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
| Cytology | Negative | 56 (81.2%) | 43 (97.7%) | 99 (87.6%) | 1.000* |
| Positive | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| N/A | 13 (18.8%) | 1 (2.3%) | 14 (12.4%) | 0.008* |
| Variable | SLN N=69 |
NO SLN N=44 |
Total N=113 |
P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean LOS (SD) -min | 148.8 (58.2) | 144.3 (38.4) | 147 (51.2) | 0.918 |
| Mean EBL (SD) - ml | 91.9 (87.9) | 109.1 (55.0) | 98.6 (77.0) | 0.009 |
| Complications Grade 3/4$ Bowel perforation/fistula Vaginal cuff dehiscence Wound infection |
0 (0%) 0 0 0 |
4 (9.1%) 2 1 1 |
4 (3.5%) 2 1 1 |
0.021 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).